Sponsoring:

From: Garrett Gaston
------------------------------------------------------
I just watched this interview and heard Richard say that he does not suppor=
t open source. http://youtu.be/uFMMXRoSxnA I thought the entire world of GN=
U and Linux was mainly open source based. Could someone please explain?
=

===============================================================
From: Lynn Dixon
------------------------------------------------------
Garrett,
First link in a google search:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Stallman has always been pretty clear on his stance on free software (as in
freedom).

===============================================================
From: Lynn Dixon
------------------------------------------------------
Chad,
I agreed with pretty much every point he made in that video. Don't see how
any of those points made him a dick?

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
His name is Dick.
He is a crazy person because he regularly demands that projects to which he
has offered exactly zero support or endorsement use the term "GNU/Linux"
because he believes that everyone who ever used anything Linux related owes
him worship and adoration.
I have seen this first hand. It was my first introduction to who he was.
He came on the OpenOffice.org mailing list (which was my introduction to
open source software) and demanded that project start using the term
"GNU/Linux" on its website, or face his wraith.
That's how I "met" Dick Stallman. I have never seen any reason to change
my initial impression of him as an insane
fanatical-to-the-point-of-blackmail Free Software Freak (which is what FSF
really stands for).
Personally, I don't care if you pronounce it Lynn-ucks or Line-icks or some
other weird combination. But if you call it GNU/Linux, my impression of
you drops about 75 points. All thanks to Dick Stallman.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: trevor noblitt
------------------------------------------------------
I used to agree with him but in the last 10 years or so he has gone a
little nuts. I used to make some good points.

===============================================================
From: William Wade
------------------------------------------------------
Just as a side note, I think anyone with the drastic impact that someone
like RMS has had on all of our lives here, can have a fair amount
of leniency in the areas of craziness, diplomatic ability, and linguistic
pickiness.

===============================================================
From: William Wade
------------------------------------------------------
Consider that a flame bait not taken.

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
He is a little odd, but Richard Stallman still still has very valid points.

===============================================================
From: JonathanCalloway
------------------------------------------------------
I think his contributions to open source from a conceptual and philosophical point of view were, and are good and valid for the most part. However, his problem is that he has extended that philosophy to life, and turned it in to a worldview, rather than merely a simple set of philosophical principals around software development. That is where he went off the rails, and what turned him into a crazy person.
When you get to the point where you won't use any computer except some vague obscure manufacturer because the BIOS isn't open enough for you ,or you can't take a subway because the software they use doesn't meet your requirements for 'freedom', you've gone a bit too far. . . .
Just my tow cents. . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Kraus"
To: "Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group"
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:47:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
He is a little odd, but Richard Stallman still still has very valid points.
Consider that a flame bait not taken.
Dick's impact on my life was to piss me off.
- Chad W. Smith

===============================================================
From: Tim Youngblood
------------------------------------------------------
Richard is a person who is principled; a rarity it seems. I like him.

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
He's too extreme for my taste. I think he is a nut job that just happened
to be at the right place at the right time.
If he hadn't headed up the GNU suite of software something else would have
been developed to fill the void and we would have been discussing some one
else at this point.
Sticking to principals does deserve some respect, but thankfully I don't
have to like him for it.
-B

===============================================================
From: William Wade
------------------------------------------------------
The idea that someone else would have done Y if person X had not done it,
is IMNSHO a load of bunk. Easy to say in retrospect, but would have been
hard to be sure at the time.
Don't demean those who actually did what in retrospect feels obvious. There
are a lot of others who didn't do it.

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
GNU filled a void that linux needed. You think Linus would have just
dropped his project if GNU wasn't around? It is true that he might have,
but he already had the OS and just needed the core apps. I stand behind
what I said since your opinion holds no more weight than my own.
-B

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
Just because he holds an opinion you don't agree with?
----- Original Message -----

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
Like him or not, his crowd did port the user space tools that made linux a full operating system.
And had it down before Linux was running. I don't see the problem acknowledging that.
----- Original Message -----

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
Show me an old school nix grey beard who isn't.
----- Original Message -----

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
He more hard core than I. But he reminds us all how these systems,which most take for ranted, impact our lives.
And those who control the source control those systems.
----- Original Message -----

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
No - because he is a raving lunatic.
You can have all the opinions-that-I-don't-agree-with that you want, but
when you show up, uninvited, to someone else's project and start making
demands that people bow to your opinion because of something you helped do
30 years ago, then you are a crazy person.
I believe someone else would have written the software eventually. I mean
look at all the not-written-by-Dick software there is now.
The idea that someone else would have done it pretty much the same way at
the same general time actually has real-world evidence of happening. The
telephone is a pretty obvious and probably overused example. Bell just
beat some other dude to the patent office by a couple of days.
But, yes, Linus Torvald, specifically, had all the motivation he needed to
write those apps himself, or to inspire people around him to help write
them, whatever.
Regardless of if anyone else would have ever done what Dick did or not is
irrelevant. Having a good idea once in your life, or doing something cool
and helpful once in your life doesn't mean you are above question nor that
your opinions are more correct or important than anyone else's. If I saved
a basket of kittens from drowning back in 1987 that wouldn't mean you
should put me in charge of your company's finances in 2012 - even if you
make floating kitten baskets.
Also having principles and sticking to them is only as good as the
principles you hold. Racism is a principle, and holding to it is not a
good thing. "You only get what you pay for" is a principle, and people
stick to it to the damage of open source software.
And yes, I said "open source" not free, because I'm not a crazy person.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
And yet he is still take fairly seriously by big names in the computing
industry...hell, in many industries.

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
Only if you're a Scientologist

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
And that never happens around here.
But he was first. so he gets the
credit.
So Oppenheimer was just lucky?
Translation: I'll bet those grapes are sour.
Your argument is a nonsequitur. Stallman's whole argument is about how we use software and how that use impacts society.
You fail to debate his points. Simply labeling him crazy doesn't dismiss his views.
Your issue sees to be his tone not his views.

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
My issue is with *him* as a person.
I don't like him. I don't like his personality, I don't like his
arrogance, I don't like his self-promotion. So, yes, I don't like his tone=
.
He is a megalomanic, a narcissist, an idiot (when it comes to dealing with
human beings), and a jerk.
He believes everyone should do things the way HE thinks that they should be
done. That all software should be his definition of "Free Software=AE=99=
=A9".
That's not freedom - that's the opposite of freedom. If programmers don't
have the choice to NOT give away their software - to NOT share their code
... then they are not free. The software may be free - but the programmer
is not.
I like open source software. I use open source software. I have promoted
and supported open source software - with my time, my voice, and my
dollars. I believe that there are good things about open source software.
I am one of those people who promote the pragmatic side of it. Many hands
make light work, many eyes make bugs small (and few).... I also understand
the pitfalls of having data locked in some proprietary format that you
don't have control over and could potentially lose access. Anyone who has
ever had to design anything in Publisher and doesn't always have access to
a Windows machine knows that fear.
It especially pisses me off when he attacks people who are actively
developing, promoting, and encouraging open source software because they
are not "Free Enough". These people are on your side, idiot. Stop
shooting your allies.
But it's not an all-or-nothing thing. It's not even an "us vs. them".
It's not just that open source isn't the enemy of "Free Software=AE=99=A9"
and proprietary software is. Why does there have to be an "enemy" at all?
Just do your thing and let other people do theirs. If you want to explain
the benefits of your way of doing things, fine - but don't claim that doing
things any other way is evil.
If you want to promote Free Software as the best way - fine. Do not claim
it is the only way. Because it's not.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking more along the lines of a villain to some bizarro-world
version of Captain Planet. Where instead of Captain Planet promoting
Environmentalism, it was Captain Free Market promoting Libertarianism.
Dick Stallman would be one of the over-the-top cartoon
Marxist Fascist villain who would fit in perfectly in that universe.
Spewing 1984 double-speak promoting of "Freedom" whilst forcing everyone to
obey the almighty GPL 3.0 (which is preparing the way for the GPL 4.0 -
"Thou shalt do all thy programming for free, and allow everyone to have
access to everything you've ever created on demand and at no cost in
whatever format they desire.")
Here, he's just crazy.
*- Chad W. Smith*
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Stephen Kraus wro=
te:
one.
=AE=99=A9".
n't
e
er
d
one
=A9"
?
m

===============================================================
From: Lynn Dixon
------------------------------------------------------
I think the impression you have of Julian Assange is directly affected by
what country you associate your citizenship with.
Most Americans would say he is a "threat to 'Murica!"
Where other countries would consider him a journalist not afraid to expose
the mis-givings of the US government.
I am stating neither for myself.

===============================================================
From: Ed King
------------------------------------------------------
time to get laid, Chad=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A

===============================================================
From: Dan Lyke
------------------------------------------------------
Following in the path well worn by Julian Assange...

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
I ran across this when looking up the pros and cons of RMS and thought it a
funny contribution and not necessarily completely off-topic from the
current thread discussion.
Richard Stallman Finds Love Through World of Warcraft
http://gbgames.com/blog/2008/04/richard-stallman-finds-love-through-world-of-warcraft/
-B

===============================================================
From: Dan Lyke
------------------------------------------------------
I believe it's quite a bit more complex than that... I'm actually very much
a fan of what Wikileaks as an organization and movement has done generally,
but think that Assange is likely a self-serving asshole with severe
personal boundary and ego issues.
Dan

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I noticed the date, but was hoping to just add a bit of levity to the
thread :)
Just the thought of Stallman playing WoW and preaching about Free Software
to players is hilarious to me.
-B

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
Ran across this one with another search. I think some of the comments below
the video of the interview with stallman are worth reading as well.
"You see, I make software for most of my living. And I talked with
Stallman (in email) before the show, about how I would love to get any
ideas he has on how a developer, of proprietary software, can move that
software to a Free and Open license... while still keeping food on the
table for his family. From a practical standpoint."
http://lunduke.com/?p=2273
I still don't like the guy in any shape, way, form or fassion and still
think he's a nut case, but I am impressed by his dedication to his cause.
I mean, look at how he browses the web.. Taken directly from his site:
"I have several free web browsers on my laptop, but I generally do not look
at web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites operated for or by
the GNU Project, FSF or me. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending
mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them,
much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a
web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly."
By the way, Thanks to everyone who's posted to this thread. It's funny how
polarizing this guy really is.
-B

===============================================================
From: James Nylen
------------------------------------------------------
The part that got me was:
"When he started going on about freedom, I thought he was role-playing, and
so I played along. Since then, we=92ve been inseparable."
I think RMS is absolutely right that free (as in speech) software is
important to preserving our freedoms, and will only become more so in the
future.
Is he an asshole? Sure. But I don't think he's wrong. I also think
someone with a less abrasive personality and less radical views would have
failed in a lot of the places he has succeeded.
e
:

===============================================================
From: Jonathan Calloway
------------------------------------------------------
I think Richard Stallman is the Si Robertson of the Linux world. Oops... GN=
U/Linux.
Sent from my iPad
d so I played along. Since then, we=E2=80=99ve been inseparable."
tant to preserving our freedoms, and will only become more so in the future.=
one with a less abrasive personality and less radical views would have faile=
d in a lot of the places he has succeeded.
e thread :)
to players is hilarious to me.

===============================================================
From: Garrett Gaston
------------------------------------------------------
This was a much bigger response than I was expecting. I herd Stallman say t=
hat he was not opposed to software that is sold for a profit. But if all so=
urce code everywhere is always free to everyone I would expect it to be nea=
rly impossible to bring home the bacon=2C since everyone who gets that free=
ly available source code would no longer need to purchase the software. Am =
I missing something here?
From: garrett85@hotmail.com
To: chugalug@chugalug.org
Date: Sun=2C 9 Dec 2012 14:17:03 -0600
Subject: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
I just watched this interview and heard Richard say that he does not suppor=
t open source. http://youtu.be/uFMMXRoSxnA I thought the entire world of GN=
U and Linux was mainly open source based. Could someone please explain?
=20

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
I don't see redhat listed on GNUs approved "free" distros.
www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Stallman would not agree with redhat's practices. Watch the video I posted
earlier as they even reference red hat. He said he would rather any company
producing non-free software ( his definition mind you) go under than for
them to commit the unethical act of creating the software.
-B

===============================================================
From: Lynn Dixon
------------------------------------------------------
Bret,
I probably should have said gratis instead of free. It was in response to
Garrett asking how an open source company can make money on gratis software.

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
My bad. I was taking it in the context of the thread. No worries! Have a
good one.
-B

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
You can make money on free/freedom/no-cost software. You charge for
documentation, installation, physical copies, (which include packaging,
shipping, handling, and materials), support, seminars, training, non-free
add-ons, plug-ins, templates, extensions...
You make a free version that is bare-bones, and then add stuff in for a
non-free "upgrade"...
There are lots of ways. Put ads in it. Yes, if the code is free, it could
be stripped out, but a lot of people don't know how to code, or compile.
None of the above is nearly as easy or straightforward as charging for the
software, of course.
*
*
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: bilhays@me.com
------------------------------------------------------
Given the discussion which I quite enjoyed, you all might find this interesting:
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/failure

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
Dedication to a single cause at the expense of everything else in life =
can be looked at in a number of ways. It just depends on how you as an =
individual see his ideals and the method he goes about trying to achieve =
his goals.
One thing that and I can't wrap my head is around him being =
anti-children because of their impact on the environment?! wtf man=85 If =
you just don't want children, that's one thing.. But there is no =
possible way to calculate an individual's impact on the environment.. =
Though I have to admit it does comfort me a little that he's choosing to =
let his lineage die with him. Maybe we should direct him to =
http://www.vhemt.org/ to seal the deal.. (Voluntary Human Extinction =
Movement for those who are unaware) I wonder if they use only free =
software. hmmmm=85.
-B
bizarro-world
Libertarianism.
everyone to
-
have

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
Chaddie, ( since you want to call Richard Stallman "Dick Stallman" ) --
Exactly HOW has RMS "forced" anyone to do anything?
Isn't it the authors who do not want to allow a copy of their own code
to be distributed padlocked -- who are only forcing you not to do
that? Is RMS not just creating and defending a means for those authors
to do that??? What is your whine about?
So what if he disapproves of some of your choices, and says so? You
imagine yourself to have a right that he not do this?
----- Message from rod-lists@epbfi.com ---------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:11:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Rod-Lists
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
Oh, you know, all the views and work he did to recieve all these accolades:
Stallman has received the following recognition for his work:
- 1986: Honorary lifetime membership of the Chalmers University of
Technology

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
I can look at wikipedia just as easily so there's no need to paste it here.
Please explain what views you are referring to specifically, or is it just
his "Free Software" ideology? I'll respect your views/opinions either way,
I just would prefer elaboration since it was a very general statement.
-B

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
I meant no offense, I was just using it to point out that he has done the
footwork and his opinions are respected enough to receive recognition.
I especially liked what he said after Steve Jobs died, criticizing the
walled garden approach to computer as limiting user freedom and being to
authoritarian.

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
He hasn't forced anyone to do anything, that I am aware of.
What you seem to be referring to is where I was responding to someone
claiming that i had made Dick into a Bond Villian.
Here is the entire quote of my response.
"I was thinking more along the lines of a villain to some bizarro-world
version of Captain Planet. Where instead of Captain Planet promoting
Environmentalism, it was Captain Free Market promoting Libertarianism.
Dick Stallman would be one of the over-the-top cartoon
Marxist Fascist villain who would fit in perfectly in that universe.
Spewing 1984 double-speak promoting of "Freedom" whilst forcing everyone to
obey the almighty GPL 3.0 (which is preparing the way for the GPL 4.0 -
"Thou shalt do all thy programming for free, and allow everyone to have
access to everything you've ever created on demand and at no cost in
whatever format they desire.")
Here, he's just crazy."
In case you can't follow it, in the first paragraph I set it up, explaining
that I do not view him as a Bond villain, but a cartoon villain. As if
from some non-existant cartoon promoting the Free Market. "In that
universe" as I end the first paragraph, he would do the following things
outlined in the second paragraph. Claiming to promote freedom but only
giving slavery (which is what it is called when you have to work for no pay
against your will).
I then revert back to reality in the 3rd and final paragraph, where I begin
by saying "Here" as opposed to the "in that universe" that I had been
describing for the rest of the email, "he's just crazy".
Here he does not force anyone to do anything, because he lacks the power to
do so. But as I have seen first hand, he would do so if given the power.
By making wild claims against projects that he doesn't agree with, (like
calling one of the most popular version of desktop linux "Spyware") and
making demands of other projects (like telling OpenOffice.org how to run
their website) - it is clear that he wants everyone to bow to his wishes.
And I'd like to quote this gem from the Chugalug archives circa 2009
*/NOTE/* this was not posted by me, I can neither confirm nor deny the
validity of these claims.
=3D=3D=3DQUOTE=3D=3D=3D
I cannot fathom how the whole Stallman worship thing started.
He picks his toe jam in the middle of lectures and ponders in earnest
if "consentual pedophilia really harms children"
Why is this man on a lecture circuit?
They may as well send clowns, the beared lady and a few elephants with him
so
they can have a proper circus.
Eccentricities aside, all I see is a legacy text editor, an aging toolkit,
hijack attempts on Linux as Hurd pretty much died on the vine and a naive
and
ultimately unworkable philosophy.
As far as I am concerned, he's done more damage to Open Source than
Microsoft
ever could.
If we could have a community more in-line with the BSD folk, I'd be a happy
camper.
=3D=3D=3DEND QUOTE=3D=3D=3D
*- Chad W. Smith*
MS
e
g
s
,
so
".
=99=A9"

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
If only MIT agreed with you.
The problem is, no matter how many ways you say it, he has valid points. He
particularly is fighting against DRM and Software Patents, both of which
are troublesome and anti-user generally.
Software Patents especially have just created more patent lawsuits than
generate any real momentary value for companies.
And can we stop with what is basically boiling down to slander? Seriously?

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
So, Chaddie,
You made a lawyer-type response to your inaccurate caricature. So, I
guess in some technical sense, it is correct that you put in a
disclaimer. BUT, eeewwwww -- much worse than toe jam, in my opinion. I
do agree that his pedophilia attitude ( IF TRUE ) is creepy. eeewwwwww
You did not answer my other points. You don't like his style. So what?
Whether or not the distro referred to "is spyware", what on the sacred
Planet does its popularity have to DO with it?
Like others, he has strong opinions. You really really hate that he
criticized someone's web site? Please get help.
----- Message from chad78@gmail.com ---------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:35:44 -0600
From: Chad Smith
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
No offense taken at all, and I see your point about his acknowledged
accomplishments. I was just hoping to get the exact views you meant. I'll
just assume we are referring to only "free software" at this point for
simplicity unless you say otherwise.
Thanks,
B

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
I meant more his contributions against DRM and Software Patents.

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
He is a freak - a creep - a weirdo - and an extremist.
I readily admitted that I do not like him as a person.
Now - what views of his do I disagree with? That open source is the only
way to go. That without open source the world's data would be locked up in
the control a few corporations. That he himself did more for Linux than
Linus. That "what people refer to as Linux is really GNU". That people
should listen to him at all about anything.
Before there was an OpenOffice.org or an AbiWord - there were tons of
for-profit, closed-source programs that could open Microsoft Office
documents. And there still are.
As long as there is a need for people to have access to their data, there
will be a market for it. If there is a market for it, then someone with
the skills to make it happen and/or the drive to make it happen will...
make it happen.
No one has to give away their time, talents, and creativity. I am glad
that they do - and grateful, but it is not a "need" - it is not a necessity
nor an imperative. It is a nice thing. It is a cool thing. But it is not
a need thing.
I don't believe in software patents. I don't even actually agree with
copyrights at all. But I also don't believe anyone should have to be
forced to share what they've done, what they've created if they don't want
to. You can write a piece of software, and sell it, and make it hard to
copy without permission - without a copyright. And you can share your
software freely, if you choose to - without sharing the source code.
Freeware, Shareware, Trialware... these things have existed for decades.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
Chad, I'm sorry, your personal dislike for him is biasing everything you
are saying. While I'd be more that glad to agree that he is weird and
creepy, the way you talk about him just kind of smears everything you say.
You make him sound like the guy creeping down the street flashing people.
And unfortunately, until you can prove that he is, I can't take what you
are saying at face value.
He is weird, yes. He is creepy, yes. His views are unorthodox, yes. Doesn't
invalidate everything he has ever said or done though, and CERTAINLY
doesn't mean we should shun his work or his views.

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
And the fact that you like him doesn't mean we should accept his views.
Nobody has given any reason to listen to him. He wrote some stuff back in
the 70s and shared it? Great! So did thousands of other programmers.
Agree with him, don't agree with him - that's up to you. The man gets far
more credit than he deserves, and he works hard to make sure that happens.
He tries to set himself up as Tesla to Linus' Edison (as in the Internet's
belief that Tesla was the brains and Edison just took credit for it) - or
Wozniak to Linus' Jobs - but he's not worth comparing to any one of those 4
guys.
Has he done more to advance computers than I have? Absolutely. I haven't
written a single line of code other than webpages.
Does what he's done mean everyone should give a flying fart what he thinks
about stuff? Nope...
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
Once again you invoke the very boogy-man of force that you won't defend.
Exactly WHO does this refer to -- "But I also don't believe anyone
should have to be
You mean you should be able to include a copy of my code in a program
with code you write, and padlock the whole thing, whether I want you
to or not?
So, if I copied something of yours, added a little, and obfuscated it,
and gave you no credit or cash -- you'd (1) not object, and (2)
believe no one should object in such a situation ???
----- Message from chad78@gmail.com ---------
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:55:16 -0600
From: Chad Smith
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
----- End message from chad78@gmail.com -----
--
R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga, TN, USA
http://chalice.us/poe/

===============================================================
From: Bret McHone
------------------------------------------------------
I won't say much as a direct rebuttal to that one to avoid taking this any farther off topic. What I will say is that I do not agree with that since crop rotation and composting does a great job of putting nutrients back in the soil. Though I whole-heartedly admit this article is probably referring to large-scale commercial farming which I have no experience with or information about. I have a small farm and have only recently really started gardening/farming on any scale. Originally it was just for horses but it has expanded a bit.
-B

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
If you share the code, then yes.
If you choose to share the code with the world - then I should be able to
take that code - change it all or not one bit of data - lock it up, and
sell it.
The thing is - your free code will still be out there. Free. So I would
be competing with a no-cost alternative. If I did not add something of
value to it (and that value may only be in branding or advertising) - then
it will not sell. That is how the free market works.
If you do not choose to share the code - then I have no right to do what
you claimed. Not under current law.
The bogey-man of force you refer to is the desire of RMS. If you want
everything to be open source, and believe anything short of your personal
definition of open...er um.. "Free" ... is inherently and demonstratively
EVIL - then your desire is that all software was free/open/libre.... And
that would mean no programmer would have the choice to do otherwise. Call
that force if you want to. His views limit choice - they, in fact, limit
freedom. If he was given the power/authority to impose his views on
others, consumer and programmer choice would suffer. Innovation would
suffer. If you take away the incentive of money, then the motivation to
work is decreased.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: Ed King
------------------------------------------------------
what "value" did you add to the open office org cds on ebay?

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
But, if I choose to LICENSE my code -- make it conditionally available
-- you would say I have no right to do so? I'm limited to all or
nothing, accordingly to you? WTF?
If you are allowed to have my code, you can just market it under your
name, padlocked, no matter what I want? Why on Earth?
----- Message from chad78@gmail.com ---------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:55:06 -0600
From: Chad Smith
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
----- End message from chad78@gmail.com -----
--
R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga, TN, USA
http://chalice.us/poe/

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
I said - "IF YOU CHOSE TO GIVE IT AWAY" then I could do that.
If you didn't chose to give it away, I couldn't.
It's not hard to understand, seriously.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: Chad Smith
------------------------------------------------------
Advertising, physical media, compilation of resources, awareness of the
product itself, gathering documentation... Not everyone has broadband,
even today - much less however many years ago that was. So they could buy
a CD, or spend a week downloading things over dial-up, and hope no one
calls during that time, or that AOL doesn't just crap out on them.
I designed labels for it, and wrote an installer screen that would walk
people through what was on the disc and linked to the install files on the
CD itself, as well as online documentation.
I also discussed that with the leadership of the OpenOffice.org team, as
well as the mailing lists, before I did it. I didn't violate any laws or
any licenses.
There were, and probably still are, companies that box and sell open source
software in Big Box stores. Sometimes rebranded, sometimes not. I was
doing the same thing they did.
I did, however, violate an ebay rule that I did not know about - you cannot
sell burned CDs at all. Even if they are recordings of original music that
you yourself wrote and performed - or software that you yourself coded from
scratch. I did not know that rule existed at the time - and since learning
about it - I have not sold any CDs or DVDs on ebay since.
*- Chad W. Smith*

===============================================================
From: DaWorm
------------------------------------------------------
you would say I have no right to do so? I'm limited to all or nothing,
accordingly to you? WTF?
I believe Chad is saying that according to Stallman, you should not be
allowed to "LICENSE" your code in the first place. You should be required
to make it completely and totally free. At the same time, neither should
Chad be allowed sell a product without giving away the code, whether he
wrote it himself or copied it from you. Under RMS's vision of the world,
there should be no software that the source isn't freely available and
freely modifiable, no matter where it came from.
Can't say I agree with that view of the world. In that world, the only
time anyone would ever get paid for writing software would be by the first
person/company that wanted that software. No one else would ever have need
to pay for it again. Maybe for documentation or support or even bug fixes
if the need is great enough and you can't wait for someone else to pay to
have it fixed, but not for the software itself.
Not sure I could make a living in that world.
Jeff.

===============================================================
From: DaWorm
------------------------------------------------------
make money off of the code they pay me to write, I still end up out of a
job.
Jeff.

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
Except in most cases, unless you have special arrangement with your
company, you don't get to license your code. Your company does.
But in the long run, I don't think your code matters, its what the end
result of all your coding is.
And as we have seen, time and again, companies are going so far to
copyright codes that is so commonly used that is borderlines on pathetic.

===============================================================
From: Stephen Kraus
------------------------------------------------------
I don't think making money off your code will ever be an issue, companies
hire you to program, what code you use to do it is less of there concern
beyond maybe which language you use.
We all know its a fools errand to ask programmers to work for free, but
Stallman has a point: Companies shouldn't be allowed to copyright
individual bits of codes, a whole program? Sure, but copyrighting
individual lines and statements is like copyrighting the English language
sentence by sentence.

===============================================================
From: DaWorm
------------------------------------------------------
I write embedded systems code. I control hardware via software, and the
hardware is trivial to copy. While my company might continue to sell that
hardware even if my software were to be free to the world, for a little
while, it wouldn't be long before someone else would copy the whole lot and
go into competition with us. RMS thinks that's a grand idea. When some
Chinese knockoff made by nearly slave labor undercuts our prices by 50%
though, it won't be long before I'm out of a job. They spent a couple of
days copying the PCB, an hour or so figuring out how to compile my code,
and !bam! they're in business. So the months, and sometimes years it has
taken me to develop a product is now copied in a matter of days. I'm
sorry, that's not the kind of world that rewards innovation.
We all know its a fools errand to ask programmers to work for free, but
If I come up with a sort routine that is a thousand times faster than any
other out there, I (or my employer) darn well better be able to copyright
that, and not just the whole program that makes use of it. However, it
usually isn't copyright that provides that protection, it is patents. And
software patents are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I would agree that
all the bullshit about copyrighting "look and feel" needs to go. But truly
novel algorithms and methodologies deserve some form of protection. The
problem lately is the definition of "novel" has gotten pretty sloppy.
Jeff.

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
You came out with a position on right and wrong.
Now you have dodged my questions with (1) its the company, (2) it
isn't what matters. Pitiful. You are caught on your contradictions.
----- Message from ub3ratl4sf00@gmail.com ---------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:04:38 -0500
From: Stephen Kraus
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group

===============================================================
From: rdflowers
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen,
There is no way that RMS affects you, UNLESS this code of yours isn't
fully yours but you would like to incorporate someone else's code in
your own without fulfilling their license terms.
You wouldn't do that, would you?
I still don't see what some find to be unclear -- maybe just because
it just isn't convenient to them that things are as they are?
----- Message from daworm@gmail.com ---------
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:13:30 -0500
From: DaWorm
Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group
----- End message from daworm@gmail.com -----
--
R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga, TN, USA
http://chalice.us/poe/

===============================================================
From: DaWorm
------------------------------------------------------
There is no way RMS affects us TODAY. But if he gets his way, THEN we
would all be affected.

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that RMs simply saying that you ought to be able to use electronic systems without proprietary bits being involved.
That is a position of choice. One most of us even in the linux world can not often do because proprietary drivers.
And let's face it, the move of computing to mobiles and tablet does endanger the freedom we were given during the microcomputer revolution.
----- DaWorm wrote:

===============================================================
From: Dave Brockman
------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I've tried really hard to abstain from this thread... for various
reasons. But it seems to me that one very simple, very important fact
has not appeared in the discussion thus far.
Simply put, RMS is a fundamentalist. Go ahead and google and make
sure you have an accurate understanding of the definition of a
fundamentalist. We all draw our lines, I draw mine closer to me than
most on this list. There is at least the distance of our solar system
between where I draw my line and where RMS draws his line. The man
does have some ... less than endearing social qualities, but then
again, so did Jefferson and Edison. Our history books seem to have
forgotten about most of those... Don't damn the genius for the
eccentricity.....
Regards,
dtb
- --
"Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
network." RFC 1925
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlDNTzkACgkQABP1RO+tr2QT/gCgldp587jysnRiGIn/HE/NjvT9
nH8AoKbgVZJSy8KrI66nRSEh+epk5EOq
=6uTl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

===============================================================
From: Rod-Lists
------------------------------------------------------
point taken.
I would add that many advocates of any position fear co-opting via compromise.
----- Original Message -----